Eyepatch : definition of Eyepatch and synonyms of Eyepatch (English) "Eye pad" and "Eyepad" redirect here. For the product by Apple Inc., see iPad . Israeli politician Moshe Dayan wearing an eyepatch An eyepatch or eye pad is a small patch that is worn in front of one eye. It may be a cloth patch attached around the head by an elastic band or by a string, or an adhesive bandage. It is often worn by people to cover a lost or injured eye, but it also has a therapeutic use in children for the treatment of amblyopia . (See orthoptics and vision therapy .) Eyepatches used to block light while sleeping are referred to as a sleep mask . Contents 8 External links History In the years before advanced medicine and surgery, eyepatches were common. They were particularly prevalent among members of dangerous occupations, such as blacksmiths who used them to cover one eye for protection from sparks while working. Sailors would also wear them over one eye above deck and then switch it over in order to be able to see in the dark below deck. [1] David Bowie made it a fashion statement in 1972.

Stereotypical depiction of a pirate with eyepatch Sailors and pilots It has been speculated that sailors who often went above and below deck might have used an eyepatch to keep one eye adjusted to the darkness below decks. [2] The strong sunlight while above deck on an oceangoing vessel could require minutes of adaptation to the dim lighting below deck. With virtually no light sources below deck, sailors would have to rely heavily upon their eyes to adjust. In the critical moments of modifying the rigging, navigating, and especially during battle, those minutes were too precious. A simple switch of the patch from one eye to the other might have saved time when going between decks. Although this usage of the eyepatch is not supported by any historical records,[ citation needed ] it was tested during the MythBusters Pirate Special and found to be plausible. Although it is said that it was also more of way of fashion amoungst later day pirates.

In 16th century many had eye issues due to the old double barrled cannons which exherted flint and shrapnel into the left eyeand due to the common issue it become just common for pirates to don such gear and dispite improved weaponry due to the commness it become more of a fashionable assest rather than protection or medical reasoning. Similarly, pilots at one time would also do the same, when flying at night over brightly lit cities, so that one eye could look out, and the other would be adjusted for the dim lighting of the cockpit to read unlit instruments and maps. [3] Some military pilots have worn a lead-lined or gold-lined eyepatch, to protect against blindness in both eyes, in the event of a nuclear blast or laser weapon attack. [4] [5] [6] Eyepatches are not currently used by military personnel; modern technology has provided an array of other means to preserve and enhance night vision, including red-light and low-level white lights, and night vision devices .

[7] [8] [9] Eyecare treatment Amblyopia A child wearing an adhesive eyepatch to correct amblyopia Eye patching is used in the orthoptic management [10] of children at risk of lazy eye ( amblyopia ), especially strabismic or anisometropic [11] amblyopia. These conditions can cause visual suppression of the dissimilar images by the brain, resulting in blindness in an otherwise functional eye. By patching the good eye, the amblyopic eye is forced to function, causing vision to be retained. [10] [11] Extraocular muscle palsy To initially relieve double vision ( diplopia ) caused by an extra-ocular muscle palsy, an eye care professional may recommend using an eyepatch. This can help to relieve the dizziness, vertigo and nausea that are associated with this form of double vision. [12] [13] [14] Notable eyepatch-wearers snopes.com - Why pirates wore eye patches 01 July 2013 09:28 PM Why pirates wore eye patches Comment: I recently read this article wherein a Dr.

Jim Sheedy from the Vision Performance Institute from Oregon's Pacific University makes the claim that pirates wore their eye patches as a tactic, not as a cover for an injury. He says (without citing specific evidence) that pirates "wore a patch over one eye to keep it dark-adapted outside" so that when they walked below decks, they could simply switch the patch over to the other eye and quickly move about the cabin. I have no doubt about the science of dark adapting a single eye so that you can quickly go from light areas to dark areas without being rendered blind, but I'm curious about the historicity of the pirate comment. 01 July 2013 09:31 PM "Narrr, it was me first day with the new hook." snopes 01 July 2013 09:31 PM Did pirates really commonly wear eye patches, or was that image just an outgrowth of popular literature such as Treasure Island? And why would only pirates wear eye patches? Wouldn't just about anyone working on a ship have to deal with the issue of moving from dark areas below decks to the brightly-lit outdoors?

GenYus234 01 July 2013 09:43 PM What seem to be contemporary portraits of Edward Teach (Blackbeard), Henry Morgan, Captain Kidd, Jack Rackham, Anne Bonny, Mary Read, Bartholemew Roberts do not show any of them with eyepatches, nor do their sailors have them. While some of them are on shore, some of them are on board ships. While the pirates in question could have removed them for the portrait or sketch, it would be odd that they would if it was such a common thing. 01 July 2013 10:38 PM Mythbusters confirmed this as plausible. GenYus234 01 July 2013 10:53 PM IMS, it was plausible that wearing an eyepatch on deck would help with navigating in the semi-dark below deck. Not that pirates wore eyepatches for that reason. ganzfeld 01 July 2013 10:57 PM What snopes said. There isn't any evidence that Pirates did wear eye patches.

Our images of 'pirates' - including just about everything - come from storybooks, not from real life. diddy 02 July 2013 04:25 AM I would call the idea that some pirates/sailors could have worn eye patches (I take the explanation though to adapt to the darkness as post hoc reasoning though and there is no evidence to support it outside of "it works in theory") possible. Working on ships was pretty dangerous stuff and getting injuries wasn't unheard of. And with medical treatment being pretty crude, I don't doubt that you could loose an eye or a hand/leg or whatever and the easiest thing to do would be amputate - the alternative being death (which honestly probably) was more common. I agree with Snopes, it's probably not just a pirate thing, but something that any sailor might end up with. I also agree that much of what we think of pirates is based on myth and like cowboys, got whitewashed by pop fiction. ganzfeld 02 July 2013 04:46 AM Although a good deal of pirate lore comes from Stevenson, maybe this one comes more from William Henry G.

Kingston's The Pirate of the Mediterranean. Don Enrico 02 July 2013 05:39 AM I always presumed that the reason for the injury to the eye leading to the wearing of the eyepatch was the introduction of the sextant in the mid 18th century. This navigational device has you looking at the sun through more or less strong lenses every day and for some time (as long as it takes to get a proper altitude). Nowadays sextants come with protective dark glasses, but in the 18th century that probably wasn't the case. And we all have been told that you don't look at the sun through a binocular or a lens! So taking the altitude with a sextant would be a common activity for a nautical officer on board a 18th centruy ship that would lead to injuries of one (and only one) eye. That doesn't explain why only pirates are shown wearing eyepatches, and why members of the crew (who don't have nautical duties) should wear eyepatches, but that is probably due to the romantic picture of pirates in literature and movies mentioned already.

ganzfeld 02 July 2013 08:39 AM I've never heard of someone wearing an eye patch because of an injury that's inside the eye. Lainie Quote: Extraocular muscle palsy[edit] To initially relieve double vision (diplopia) caused by an extra-ocular muscle palsy, an eye care professional may recommend using an eyepatch. This can help to relieve the dizziness, vertigo and nausea that are associated with this form of double vision.[12][13][14] ETA: Not an injury, but an internal issue with the eye. ganzfeld 02 July 2013 02:52 PM Well, OK, but I don't think that's the kind of injury that would be caused by looking through a sextant at the Sun. Lainie 02 July 2013 03:15 PM Yes, I know that, having read the bit I quoted. :) I knew a guy who wore an eyepatch after removal of a brain tumor damaged his optic nerve and caused him to be blind in one eye.

I don't know if there was some external manifestation of that injury, because after the surgery I never saw him without the eyepatch. ETA: And no, that wasn't caused by looking at the sun either. :-) Horse Chestnut 02 July 2013 07:28 PM When I heard the explanation, they qualified the reason for wearing the patch; it was so when you boarded a captured ship, you could quickly adjust to the dim light while searching through an unfamiliar below deck. In other words, you would have only worn the patch while you were attacking a strange ship, not while you were hanging out on your own vessel. Richard W 02 July 2013 08:04 PM Wouldn't the lack of short-range depth perception during the fight above decks be a significant disadvantage, or were they relying on being good enough fighters that it didn't matter? I'd have thought it would be better to subdue everybody on deck and then either get anybody hiding below to come up, or if you needed to go below-deck yourself but it was dangerous to wait for your eyes to adjust because people below would still be trying to kill you, why not cover or shade both eyes for a while?

The people on deck with their eyes open could still protect you during that time, and opening your eyes when you get below takes less time and hampers you less than fiddling about with an eye-patch at a critical moment. Alarm 04 July 2013 03:57 PM Quote: Originally Posted by Richard W (Post 1749359) Wouldn't the lack of short-range depth perception during the fight above decks be a significant disadvantage, or were they relying on being good enough fighters that it didn't matter? I'd have thought it would be better to subdue everybody on deck and then either get anybody hiding below to come up, or if you needed to go below-deck yourself but it was dangerous to wait for your eyes to adjust because people below would still be trying to kill you, why not cover or shade both eyes for a while? The people on deck with their eyes open could still protect you during that time, and opening your eyes when you get below takes less time and hampers you less than fiddling about with an eye-patch at a critical moment.

Plus, there's the fact that, in a noisy environment like a ship, your eyes are probably your most useful means of determining threats and by wearing an eyepatch, you basically create a blindside from which enemies can surprise you. "Belaying pin to the noggin'! You didn't see that one coming, didja?" Richard W 04 July 2013 08:30 PM Absolutely, I realised the danger of the blind side after I'd posted, but too late to edit. More significant than the lack of depth perception. Plus the idea of switching the patch to the other eye as you went below decks makes no sense - even if it did make sense to wear an eye-patch in case you suddenly found yourself in darkness in the first place, when you were in darkness, why not just take it off? It's not like the eye-patch would keep your first eye light-adjusted to the glare when you went back up.

Hero_Mike 04 July 2013 11:38 PM Quote: Originally Posted by Richard W (Post 1749983) Plus the idea of switching the patch to the other eye as you went below decks makes no sense - even if it did make sense to wear an eye-patch in case you suddenly found yourself in darkness in the first place, when you were in darkness, why not just take it off? It's not like the eye-patch would keep your first eye light-adjusted to the glare when you went back up. Not during the day, but at night. At night, below deck would be lit - though dimly - with candles and lanterns. On a cloudy or moonless night, it would be much darker on deck and the eye adjusted to near darkness would be uncovered for short trips on deck. So was the argument, IIRC, on Mythbusters. Richard W 04 July 2013 11:55 PM Err... so then why wear the eye-patch when you were on deck? If it was dark up there and light below (which also makes little sense) then putting an eye-patch on wouldn't help at all.

Pirates would go around with a little candle in a box in front of one eye. Oh, right, I get it - they were supposed to hang around wearing an eye-patch below deck on their own ship in case they needed to make a "short trip on deck" (what?), when they would take it off to save themselves two seconds of adjustment. Which wouldn't be critical because they wouldn't be likely to be attacked without warning on their own ship. Each supposed explanation makes less sense than the last... Nick Theodorakis 05 July 2013 01:33 PM I haven't found any references that indicate pirates (or other sailors/marines who boarded vessels) widely used eye patches to maintain dark adaption in one eye, but interestingly, they were once used on SAC aircraft in the event of nuclear war: "At DEFCON 2 or higher, the Looking Glass pilot and co-pilot were both required to wear an eye patch, retrieved from their Emergency War Order (EWO) kit.

In the event of a surprise blinding flash from a nuclear detonation, the eye patch would prevent blindness in the covered eye, thus enabling them to see in at least one eye and continue flying." Nick ETA: no indication as to whether they said "Yarrr!" when donning an eye patch during global thermonuclear war. hoitoider 05 July 2013 03:16 PM Saying it was only pirates is misleading; it would be sailors in general. I always thought the patches were due to eye injury from the sun, since on the water it's way more intense b/c of the reflection. A patch could also keep a diseased eye from hurting more due to the sun; perhaps eye disease was more common among sailors b/c of diet-related issues like lack of fruits & vegetables. Didn't Popeye the sailor man have an eye disease? He just didn't wear a patch and ate lots of raw spinach (a good source of Vitamin C).

ganzfeld 05 July 2013 03:19 PM Quote: Originally Posted by Nick Theodorakis (Post 1750089) "At DEFCON 2 or higher, the Looking Glass pilot and co-pilot were both required to wear an eye patch, retrieved from their Emergency War Order (EWO) kit. I think the mains source of that info is probably also fiction. That's not to say it isn't true of course. Alarm 05 July 2013 03:24 PM Quote: Originally Posted by Richard W (Post 1750008) Err... so then why wear the eye-patch when you were on deck? If it was dark up there and light below (which also makes little sense) then putting an eye-patch on wouldn't help at all. Pirates would go around with a little candle in a box in front of one eye. Oh, right, I get it - they were supposed to hang around wearing an eye-patch below deck on their own ship in case they needed to make a "short trip on deck" (what?), when they would take it off to save themselves two seconds of adjustment.

Which wouldn't be critical because they wouldn't be likely to be attacked without warning on their own ship. Each supposed explanation makes less sense than the last... My beef with it is that if the time required to adjust your eyesight is so critical, then what about the time required to grab a hold of something while you're switching your eyepatch around. "I need to go on deck to trim these sails before the gale force winds tear the masts off! OK, give me a second to switch my eyepatch around... Aaaaaahh! Giant freakish wave and I've only got one hand on a rope!":rolleyes: hoitoider 05 July 2013 04:40 PM I was googling some for 19th c. engravings of sailors with eye patches and found 05 July 2013 05:01 PM Quote: Originally Posted by Alarm (Post 1750109) My beef with it is that if the time required to adjust your eyesight is so critical, then what about the time required to grab a hold of something while you're switching your eyepatch around....

It takes quite awhile for the retina to become dark adapted, and it happens in two phases, neither of which are related to the contraction or expansion of the pupil, which although is rapid (seconds) accounts for only a small part of adaptation to light intensity. Most of the response to decreased light levels is due to regeneration of light pigments in the rods and cones of the retina. Cones take at least 5-10 minutes to become dark adapted, and rods, which can function in even lower light, take 20-30 minutes to become fully dark adapted. See: Originally Posted by hoitoider (Post 1750126) I was googling some for 19th c. engravings of sailors with eye patches and found You see, that proves it. That fellow is going into the recruitment office, which is extremely dark. So he needs his eye patch on so he can pillage it. diddy 06 July 2013 12:13 AM Quote: Originally Posted by hoitoider (Post 1750103) Saying it was only pirates is misleading; it would be sailors in general.

I always thought the patches were due to eye injury from the sun, since on the water it's way more intense b/c of the reflection. A patch could also keep a diseased eye from hurting more due to the sun; perhaps eye disease was more common among sailors b/c of diet-related issues like lack of fruits & vegetables. Didn't Popeye the sailor man have an eye disease? He just didn't wear a patch and ate lots of raw spinach (a good source of Vitamin C). I also think that working on a wooden ship would be a hazard. There are a bunch of conditions where wood on a ship could splinter and dirty splintered wood isn't exactly good for soft tissue. Not to mention that navy folks and pirates are subject to various battle wounds. Onyx_TKD 06 July 2013 03:44 AM Quote: Originally Posted by diddy (Post 1750272) I also think that working on a wooden ship would be a hazard. There are a bunch of conditions where wood on a ship could splinter and dirty splintered wood isn't exactly good for soft tissue. Not to mention that navy folks and pirates are subject to various battle wounds.

I wonder if eye patches, peg legs, and other prosthetic devices are associated with pirates because other sailors were less likely to remain employed as sailors after such an injury. I assume that a Navy sailor who lost a eye, foot, or hand would no longer be eligible to serve in the Navy. Perhaps pirate crews were more willing to let a disabled sailor keep working rather than looking for a replacement? ganzfeld 06 July 2013 03:48 AM Or, alternatively, perhaps out of work sailors (some who also told tall tales of pirates) are where people who had never been to sea got their images of sailors and pirates. Hero_Mike Originally Posted by Richard W (Post 1750008) Each supposed explanation makes less sense than the last... I am merely recalling my recollection of the treatment of the OP on Mythbusters. I suggest you watch it so you can understand and critique it directly. When they did it, they presented reasonable and logical arguments and demonstrated the benefit of having one eye acclimated to darkness.

diddy 06 July 2013 02:41 PM Except that they had zero historical proof that this is the case - they just assumed that it was true because it was scientifically possible and they never provided actual proof. Which I think was the reason it was called plausible and not confirmed IIRC. I also think that they didn't do enough on that myth. St. Alia 06 July 2013 04:07 PM Good memory, Diddy. :) Here's a quote from their site: Quote: Originally Posted by St. Alia (Post 1750425) I liked that episode, but I agree there could have been more to it. Overal I liked it too, but I felt that that part was a downer since they never really explicitly talked about the lack of historical proof nor the more plausible reasons that eyepatches - the various ship work activity being dangerous and basically made it sound that the plausibility of their results made it sound like it was more fact. At least thats how I felt.

Hero_Mike 06 July 2013 06:57 PM Quote: Originally Posted by diddy (Post 1750405) Except that they had zero historical proof that this is the case - they just assumed that it was true because it was scientifically possible and they never provided actual proof. Which I think was the reason it was called plausible and not confirmed IIRC. I also think that they didn't do enough on that myth. Maybe you don't understand the premise of the show? They don't have a time machine nor are they archaeologists or historians. There's no way that this myth could have been "confirmed" - "plausible" is as good as it gets. Same with other "historical" myths - like setting a ship on fire with mirrors. diddy Originally Posted by Hero_Mike (Post 1750448) Maybe you don't understand the premise of the show? I am very familiar with it - I have watched it from day one and have seen every episode.

All I was hoping for is that they would have said explicitly that there is no historical basis for the myth (which I do not recall them doing) and they even neglected to point out the obvious reason that they would have patches in the first place. They have done similar things for other myths (I can recall several myths where they point out that their research team failed to turn up proof of the myth happening). Even in your example they bent way over backwards in their re-visit to point out that there was no historical reason to suggest such a thing ever happened. Let me be clear - I was happy with their overall "plausible" rating but I wish they would have explained a bit more than what they did and made it clear that there was no basis for this being an actual pirate thing. Richard W 06 July 2013 09:01 PM If nothing else, then many many people have experience with walking in and out of dark rooms under various circumstances in all walks of life, from prehistoric times until the present. Why would 18th or 19th century pirates be the only people ever to think that this was a good idea?

And if they were the only people to think of this fantastic idea, why wouldn't any more-or-less contemporary literature about pirates or sailors (of which there is plenty) say in passing "He switched his eye-patch as he went below decks"? Was it supposed to be so obvious as to be beyond mention? "Nonsensical" is a much better rating than "plausible" even on basic day-to-day evidence. diddy 06 July 2013 09:39 PM That's what I was more or less thinking - if there was any history to this, we would have some historical documentation about it, someone would have written about it - like a surviving sailor or something gleamed via a confession. My theory is that they lit the hatches the traditional way - say a lantern. However I still say that plausible is sufficient given the confines of the show. They sorta had to introduce 'plausible' for cases where it wasn't totally one way or the other - like when they can show things work but there is no proof of it ever happening. Usually they say why it gets a plausible. In this case, they were testing the science of the thing which I will admit is possible - it does work.

But that was the only thing that gets it a positive rating. I do agree overall. While it is technically possible, it doesn't pass the smell test to me and I bet that ye olde pirate probably didn't bother given that to do this, his depth of field could be screwed up in an unfamiliar locale. Not good. I vote for a torch or a lamp - both something found on ships of the day to see in dark areas. Avril 06 July 2013 10:44 PM It's worth pointing out (or maybe not, but I'm feeling like it today) that pirates are not just a thing of the past. The seas still have criminals, still doing things that cause problems for lots of people in lots of different places, still violent, etc. So it would be nice if, when people talked about pirates, they specified the era. Eye patches, on the other hand, seem to now be mainly used by children with a case of lazy eye. Richard W Originally Posted by Avril (Post 1750490) So it would be nice if, when people talked about pirates, they specified the era.

I did - I specified 18th or 19th century pirates. Modern pirates don't wear eye-patches, and aren't stereotyped as wearing eye-patches, as far as I know. In the case of Somali pirates, that might be because there are so many naval patrols in the area now that they have no chance of getting below decks on any boat they're attacking anyway, so they don't bother... but yes, piracy still exists and there's no reason that I can see to think that this idea is less valid now than then. The thing that surprises me is that there's actually a Mythbusters episode about this in the first place. Is it really such a widespread notion? The first I'd heard of it was snopes's OP in this thread. All times are GMT. The time now is 02:58 AM. Page 1 of 2 Athenaeum Electronica: Dispelling Myths: The Pirate Eye Patch Dispelling Myths: The Pirate Eye Patch [Johnathan Clayborn] So, Halloween has ended. On the heels of this holiday I can't help but wonder about some of our social quirks and perceptions.

This Halloween, as last year, I dressed up as a pirate, mostly because I was tight on cash and I had the costume handy from before. If I were to ask you to imagine a pirate chances are that most of you would imagine a scraggly, rough-around-the-edges man with eccentric clothes, several belts and bandoleers, large boots, a fancy hat, a sword, a pistol, a good tooth or two and an eye patch. Throughout the day I was asked several times "where's your eye-patch?" That got me thinking; did pirates really wear eye patches? Or is this just a myth? I compiled and researched a listing of 281 real life pirates from the ancient Grecian-Roman times until the 21st century. Granted, some of the information is spotty, but what I found interesting was that only one of those pirates had been reported as wearing an eye patch. None of the more prominent ones, including the names that everyone knows; Calico Jack, Black Bart, Blackbeard, Red Beard, Captain Morgan, etc.

The only pirate being recorded as having worn an eye patch is Rahmah ibn Jabir al-Jalahimah, an Arab pirate who sailed in the 1800's. He mostly sailed in the Persian Gulf and was described by an English author as "the most successful and the most generally tolerated pirate, perhaps, that ever infest any sea." Arguably, he was a very successful and famous pirate, especially in the Arabian lands, however, it seems unlikely that he is the reason that eye patches were associated with pirates. After all, the European countries had many equally notable and successful pirates to choose from. In reality, with 1 of 281 real life pirates wearing an eye patch the frequency of this happening is only 0.36%. Next I examined a list of 194 fictional pirates from TV shows, movies, novels and cartoons. In this listing there are 8 such pirates who were eye patches or have one eye. while this is an increase of more than 11 times the number of actual pirates with eye patches, it's still only a low 4.12%. But, this has not included a close examination of the most successful pirate franchises yet; Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean.

In the first movie, The Curse of the Black Pearl, there was no major character who sported an eye patch. In fact, a cursory glance at the extras and supporting actors did not reveal any pirates sporting eye patches, although one pirate does have a wooden eye. The second film, Dead Man's Chest, also does not reveal any pirates with an eye patch (although one of Davy Jones' crews does have an eye covered by a seaweed patch over his left eye. It seems as though this may have been intentional, but it's difficult to tell.) In fact, I did not notice any notable characters sporting an eye-patch in any of the four films. (although, admittedly there may have been the one crewman aboard the Dutchman, I haven't re-watched his transformation scene.) So, why do we have this notion that pirates should wear eye patches? And with such a low percentage of pirates both real and fictional actually wearing eye patches, where did this association stem from? One common myth is that pirates frequently sustained "battle damage" that necessitated the wearing of an eye patch. Most versions of this theory cite flying splinters as the main cause of ocular trauma.

There is reported evidence of eye injuries occurring while at sea, however, this seems to be the exception rather than the rule. Most seafaring injuries were broken bones & fractures from falling, crushing injuries from loose cargo, and lacerations and amputations from broken sail lines. Disease and sickness was also a very common ailment. Thinking about this pragmatically, if ocular injuries did exist they would likely be a hazard of the job. The life of pirates in the so-called Golden Age of Sail is not very well documented. However, they were not the only professional sailors who frequently engaged in battle aboard wooden ships. As such, any injuries sustained by pirates "in the line of looting" should also closely parallel the injuries sustained by the professional military sailors of the Old World whose accounts are more well documented. In examining the lives of over 400 notable naval officers of America, England, France & Spain I could not find any evidence that supports the notion that injuries to the eye were commonplace. And yes, there is a mountain of evidence to suggest that splinters were indeed very lethal aboard ships during combat, but usually the most common splinter injuries were to the torso, legs and arms.

Most people use their hands and arms to shield their face in the case of flying debris, so injuries to the eye would have been somewhat mitigated by that action. (And for the record, those splinter injuries that weren't immediately fatal had a tendency to become gangrenous and infected resulting in fever, delirium and eventually death some days or weeks later). Another common theory about the eye patches is that it is actually a tool utilized by sailors. The theory goes that some crewmen had to go above and below decks quite often. The ambient light levels of the decks was different. The story goes that sailors who went from the brightly-lit above decks down into the dimly-lit below decks would need a few moments for their eyes to adjust. The story goes that pirates could switch the eye-patch from one eye to the other and instantly have better vision. There are a couple of flaws with this story however. First, consider this photograph: ( ). What you are looking at is the gun deck of the American Sloop-of-War, USS Richmond. This photo was taken about the year 1900, before widespread electricity was used in the ships and things were still very much as they did then "in the old days".

This particular ship was already forty years old when the photo was taken. Notice that even without electricity the below deck compartments were still lit with an acceptable level of light. Second, consider the paradox that whatever weapons you attempt to employ in battle to give you an upper hand, your enemy will also try to use against you. It stands to reason that if this were the real reason that pirates wore eye patches, then certainly the enemies of pirates would wear them for the same reason. However, widespread accounts of their use in the Royal Navies of the world at the time are all but absent, suggesting that no tactical advantage was gained from their employment. If anything it would have been more of hindrance. Our brains interpret the signals from both eyes simultaneously as humans are hard-wired with stereoscopic vision. As such, the loss of eyesight in one eye will reduce your ability to accurately judge distance and location (depth perception) making extremely delicate tasks (like shooting or fighting) much more difficult. Third, the concept of switching eye patches like that is a physiological impossibility. Nerves in your body either transmit or they do not. There is no "step" progression in intensity. If you touch something hot your nerves will fire.

If you touch something hotter, the nerves will fire faster (but not more intensely). When one is covered by an eye patch the eye receives no stimuli and as such does not fire at all, this allows the brain to digest the information from the "active" eye. If you immediately transition from intense light to very dim and you try changing eyes your eyes will not function as you think they will. If you don't believe me, try this experiment: go into a dimly lit room. Cover up one eye. Shine a bright light in the uncovered eye. Then, quickly turn off the light and uncover your eye. You will still see a residual "imprint" of the light in the eye that was exposed to the light (even if you cover it up) and the other eye will be momentarily blurry. Why does this happen? As we just discussed more intense sensations have nerves that fire extremely rapidly (as in the case with the eye that had the light in it). When you uncover the other eye the nerves do not fire very rapidly due to the low-light situation. As such the brain becomes confused about which nervous system signal to process and the "weaker eye" won't take over until the brain can sort it out.

So, the association with pirates and eye patches did not come from actual pirates, common battle injuries or a tactical tool, where did this association come from? The answer must be in the fictional pirates. Examining the 8 fictional pirates we find a plausible answer. In 1997 Captain Ishmael Squint appeared in the Jumanji cartoon series. The debut of the Star Fox video game in 1993 featured two different one-eyed pirates. 1991 also featured a one-eyed pirate in the James Bond, Jr. cartoon series. One fictional pirate that I'm readily familiar with is the infamous "One-Eyed Willie" from the 1985 cult classic movie, the Goonies. There was an Italian comic book called Zagor that featured a one-eyed pirate in 1961. Two of the pirates I was not able to find a year for; the "Buccaneer Beer" trademark of the Van Steenberge Brewery in Belgium, and "One-Eyed Jane" from a story called "the Wicked Travels of One-Eyed Jane." I've personally never heard of either of these two. However, there is still one pirate who remains...

1883 was the first year that the book Treasure Island was published. (before that it was a series of mini-stories published in a magazine between 1881-1882). It's been cited as one of the most frequently dramatized novels. Not only was it an extremely popular book in it's own right, it's also been made into movies or TV movies more than 50 times. As if that wasn't enough it's been adapted into a play or a radio play more than 24 times as well. Based on all of this information it seems obvious that the all of the modern pirate stereotypes come not from actual pirates, but rather from one specific fictional story that managed to capture the hearts and minds of the people. It kind of makes me wonder what else I think I know... Sources: Ellis, N., Bloor, M., & Sampson, H. (2010). Patterns of seafarer injuries. Maritime Policy & Management, 37(2), 121-128.

doi:10.1080/03088830903533742 Eyepatch - wikidoc Eyepatch File:Ophthalmic eyepatch.jpg A patient wearing a protective cloth eyepatch following surgery An eyepatch is a small patch that is worn in front of one eye. It may be a cloth patch attached around the head by an elastic band or by a string, or an adhesive bandage. It is often worn by people to cover a lost or injured eye, but it also has a therapeutic use in children for the treatment of amblyopia (lazy eye). (See orthoptics and vision therapy .) Contents 7 Notes History In the years before advanced medicine and surgery, eyepatches were common. They were particularly prevalent among members of dangerous occupations, such as pirates and blacksmiths . Today, with prosthetic eyes increasingly accessible, eyepatches are no longer common. Sailors File:Piratey, vector version.svg A stereotypical pirate, sporting the requisite eyepatch Eye patches may have had a more practical purpose for sailors and pilots.

According to the myth, sailors (stereotyped by the eye-patch-wearing pirate) who often went above and below deck, used eye patches to have one eye adjusted for the top deck and the other eye already adjusted for the darkness when suddenly going below deck. The strong sunlight while above deck on an oceangoing vessel could require minutes of adjustment to the dim lighting below deck. With virtually no light sources below deck, sailors would have to rely heavily upon their eyes to adjust. In the critical moments of modifying the rigging, navigating, and especially during battle, those minutes were too precious. A simple switch of the patch from one eye to the other saved time and was more convenient than being temporarily blinded when going between decks. This was deemed plausible on the January 17, 2007 episode of Mythbusters . Pilots Similarly, pilots at one time would also do the same, when flying at night over brightly lit cities, so that one eye could look out, and the other would be adjusted for the dim lighting of the cockpit to read unlit instruments and maps.

When flashlights with red bulbs, backlit instruments, and other modern instruments came along, that no longer was necessary, just as boats and ships evolving into being well lit made eye patches a thing of the past for most boating. Amblyopia A child wearing an adhesive eyepatch to correct amblyopia Eye patching is used in management of children at risk of amblyopia (lazy eye), especially strabismic or anisometropic amblyopia. These conditions can cause visual suppression of the dissimilar images by the brain, resulting in blindness in an otherwise functional eye. By patching the good eye, the amblyopic eye is forced to function, causing vision to be retained. Famous eyepatch-wearers

Question: In an episode of Mythbusters, what was speculated to have been used by sailors to adjust to light and darkness as they went above and below a ship's deck?
Answer: Eyepatch